I'm on the players side. I think they're both responsible for being in this spot, but I feel the owners are much more at fault. Yes, Donald Fehr is a good negotiator for the players, but that doesn't mean he is trying to ruin the sport. Same for Bettman. Here's the thing (tipping point, not main reason) that I think places me in support of the players: Its a lockout, not a strike. I believe games shouldn't have been lost while a CBA was negotiated. This is the owners calling the plays. If it was a strike by the players, I'd probably be a little more in favor of the owners.

Too complicated of an issue to say in one term or the other which 'side' your on. Both sides have valid points and concerns. All things said though, the owners offered these mega contracts in the first place, the players just accepted them (looking at you Craig Leopold). Whose fault is that?

wondermoose wrote:So you're saying you don't think one side is more right than other? Not even a little? How?

For me - NHLPA - refusing to negotiate during the offseason, and waiting until 3 weeks prior to training camp to submit an offer. Then seemingly dragging everything out at so many opportunities - showing up to a meeting at a critical time in this process (and reportadely, an hour late), with 3 offers scribbled on a napkin, without "running the numbers".

NHL - their "our way or the hightway attitude". Bettman looking like he's going to cry every time he hears soemthing he doesn't like. Making their "best offer" at least a few times, only to come back with a better one. Taking offers "off the table", and then putting them back on. Just basically coming off as totally unprofessional so many times. Making comments that only the NHL has moved, when the starting point was so much in their favor.

And both sides - taking this to the courts, when they are seemingly so close?

I could be way off on all of that, i'm just on the sidelines - but this has all the makings of a giant cluser all around on both sides. Not to mention Bettman and Fehr's track record, for so many labor stoppages.....

At this point i agree with Ulf and Tim, both sides are just way off line.

But in the end i am on the owners side. From the evidence i am given, from media and magizines, the NHL needs a better model to conduct business by as it seems they are losing money.

But my problem is i don't know enough to know at what point when one side is asking for to much. At times it seems the players keep beating a dead horse. But as soon as i think that, the NHL bends a little more. who is asking for to much?? i don't know. I seem to think the players are cause i know the Fehr model to well. He made me stop being a baseball fan.

If the owners go away, new owners will take their place and the players will still be the same product I enjoy. Thus, I back the players. Argue that these players won't be in place in 20 years...sure. The players will still be the product. Whenever the owners start taking the ice, I'll back them.

Oh, also I think the owners are asking for way too much. Once they had the 50/50, that should have been enough. They shouldn't have been asking for more after that. The players' last proposal gave them more than they needed.

MRandall25 wrote:I pay to watch/see the players. I don't pay to watch owners sit in their luxury box.

That's not a strong argument. If there wasn't a league (which is run by the owners), there wouldn't be a place for the players to play unless they decided they want to get together, pull all their rescouces together, assume the risk and start their own league but that's not going to happen.

MRandall25 wrote:I pay to watch/see the players. I don't pay to watch owners sit in their luxury box.

That's not a strong argument. If there wasn't a league (which is run by the owners), there wouldn't be a place for the players to play unless they decided they want to get together, pull all their rescouces together, assume the risk and start their own league but that's not going to happen.

Figured someone would say that.

Like IDoIt said, the players are the product. We pay to see the product. We don't pay for the owners. Anyone could own the team, and it wouldn't change a thing.

You're reading it way too literally. The point is, it doesn't matter who owns the team. We as fans pay to see the players. I could name a good amount of players on each team. I know the names of maybe 5 owners.

MRandall25 wrote:I pay to watch/see the players. I don't pay to watch owners sit in their luxury box.

That's not a strong argument. If there wasn't a league (which is run by the owners), there wouldn't be a place for the players to play unless they decided they want to get together, pull all their rescouces together, assume the risk and start their own league but that's not going to happen.

Figured someone would say that.

Like IDoIt said, the players are the product. We pay to see the product. We don't pay for the owners. Anyone could own the team, and it wouldn't change a thing.

Your forgetting the fact that we pay to see the team, which is part of the league. Without 30 individual teams and a league for the teams to play in, there wouldn't be anywhere for the players to play in because there are no teams and no league to house everything as a result, no product for the fans to pay to come see.

I'm not reading into this too literally. The players need the league because without a organized league, the players have nowhere to go to play hockey in.

MRandall25 wrote:You're missing the point and taking it too literally. That's all I'm going to say.

Too bad i'm not missing the point.

I would go as far to say the players collectively generated the demand to view the game, thus actually creating the owner's job.

Thought experiment:Imagine a world where every hockey league (NHL, KHL, AHL, europe...wherever) just disappeared- like every owner in an atlas shrugged moment just folded their franchise and went away. What do you think would happen to hockey as a form of entertainment? I beleive there would be bumps and versus-network-style awkwardness, but new leagues would form as people continue to tune in to see people play the game they love at a level most cannot physically compare to. The game would survive.

Now do the same just reversed. Keep every professional hockey league in the world but make all the players suddently stop, hang them up and quit. Sure...we have college players and young people to eventually fill in...but i don't think it would be a stretch of the imagination to say league revenues would seriously be in trouble because (compared to pro viewership) people don't want to pay to watch lesser games. Eventually the leagues MAY recover, but that is only when enough top level talent (i.e. the variabled removed from the scenario) returns to rebuild fan interest. I think it is also very possible, maybe even likely, under such a scenario that many leagues don't make it and owner investments are completely lost.

Fans pay to watch players...it is the players who create demand.

Last edited by interstorm on Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.